LOUIS N. POKRESS, APPELLANT,
v.
HERMAN JOSEPHART, A/K/A JOE HART, AND SPLENDIDE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A real estate broker sued for a commission allegedly owed for services in connection with a lease transaction. The trial judge found the broker failed to prove the essential elements of his claim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the conflicting evidence did not clearly establish the broker's entitlement to compensation.
The trial court's judgment for the defendants was affirmed because the evidence, which was inconsistent and conflicting on vital issues, did not prove the plaintiff's case under the issues made by the pleadings. An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings in a bench trial unless they are clearly erroneous, and the court found no clear error here.
“Where a trial judge hears a cause without a jury, it is his duty to reconcile these conflicts and an appellate court is not warranted in disturbing his findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for bench trial findings on appeal—requiring clear error to overturn.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePokress, a real estate broker, was approached by Josephart and asked to introduce him to a purchaser for an interest in a 99-year lease owned by Josep…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action For Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Pokress, who was plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a judgment for the defendants-appellees based on the court’s findings in an action tried by the judge without a jury.
The question for our determination is whether the evidence supports the trial judge’s finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations of his complaint.
Appellant, a real estate broker, sued the appellees for a commission which he claimed was due him for services rendered to the appellees in connection with the alleged sale of and interest in a 99 year lease.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was approached by the defendant, Joseph-*757art, who asked to be introduced to a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase an interest in a certain 99 year lease which was owned by the defendant, Splendide, Inc., a corporation that was wholly owned by Josephart. The complaint further alleges that no specific compensation was mentioned but defendant, Josephart, knew that the plaintiff was a real estate broker and agreed to pay him reasonable compensation for his services. Further, it was alleged that pursuant to Josephart’s request the plaintiff introduced Josephart to one Meyer S chine and commenced a series of negotiations between them which resulted in a transaction whereby Schine met a $105,000 commitment of Splendide, Inc. to the lessor of the property and agreed to assume 50% of Splendide, Inc.’s obligations under the lease, in exchange for over 50% of the stock of Splendide, Inc. Plaintiff claimed that the reasonable value of his services was in excess of $5,000.
The defendant filed an answer denying generally all of the material allegations of the complaint and specifically averring that the plaintiff had not been employed to do anything for the defendants, had done nothing for the defendants, and therefore, was entitled to nothing from the defendants.
The trial judge heard the testimony offered and granted the defendants’ motions for dismissal and for the entry of a final judgment against the plaintiff for his failure to sustain the allegations of his complaint.
The record shows that the evidence which plaintiff offered in support of his complaint was inconsistent and conflicting with respect to the vital issues being tried. Where a trial judge hears a cause without a jury, it is his duty to reconcile these conflicts and an appellate court is not warranted in disturbing his findings unless they are clearly erroneous.1 From our review of the record we can not say that the trial judge was in error in holding that the evidence in its entirety and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom failed to prove the plaintiff’s case under the issues made by the pleadings.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leeb v. Read, 190 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…C. Ry. Co., 93 Fla. 991, 117 So. 391.” ** It is established in Florida that an appellate court is not warranted in disturbing the trial judge’s findings in a non-jury law case unless they are clearly erroneous. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 756. The lower court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed [on appeal] unless there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s findings. Richards v. Dodge, Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 47…
-
Henry F. Hill in Bankr. for Dade Plumbing, Inc. v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…a cause is tried without jury comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and this court should not disturb the trial court’s findings absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 756; Conrad v. Larson, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 806; Eldredge v. Pettingill, Fla.App. 1973, 275 So. 2d 266. Our examination of the record reveals that there is substantial competent evidence in support of the trial court’s determination. We also have…
-
Calafell v. Kinstler, 437 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harbor Yacht Repair, Inc. v. Sanger, 279 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Pokress v. Josephart, 152 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bittner v. Walsh, 132 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Clausi v. Casner Motors, Inc., 112 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)